The Court of Second Instance (TSI) has decided to lower a harbouring offender’s sentence, from aggravated harbouring charges to a simple harbouring charge, due to a lack of evidence proving that he had obtained any benefit from sheltering illegal immigrants, according to a Court of Final Appeal (TUI) statement yesterday.
The statement said that “A” and “B” often used wooden vessels operating between Macau’s Inner Harbour and Zhuhai’s Wanzai, which were usually used for transporting fishermen between the two places, to smuggle people in or out of Macau without going through immigration. The statement underlined that “A” and “B” use this method to earn illegal profits.
According to the statement, “A” used the same method to assist “C”, “D” and “E” to leave Macau on December 1, 3 and 5 in 2019 respectively, but while “A” was smuggling “E” out of the city, Macau Customs Service officers intercepted them. The statement noted that “A” then faced 11 charges, eight of which he was acquitted, yet at the Court of First Instance (TJB) the judge accused “A” of committing aggravated harbouring. The statement pointed out that “A” was sentenced to three years imprisonment for “aggravated harbouring”. The statement underlined that “A” was unhappy with the result so he appealed to the Court of Second Instance.
The statement said that the Court of Second Instance’s panel pointed out that Article 15, Section 1 of Law No. 6/2004 on Illegal Immigration and Expulsion, criminalises the wilful harbouring of illegal immigrants or overstayers.
However, for one to commit the crime of “aggravated harbouring” the court must have evidence proving that the offender had received a physical or financial reward for sheltering others, i.e., if the court did not have evidence proving that “A” received any benefit for the service he provided, it could not constitute the crime of “aggravated harbouring”.
The statement pointed out that according to the evidence, “A” assisted “E” in boarding a wooden vessel so that “E” could leave Macau without going through immigration procedures. However, the statement said that the customs officers intercepted the vessel before “E” was able to pay “A” for his service. Therefore, the TSI panel decided that “A’s” action only amounted to the crime of “harbouring” but not “aggravated harbouring”, adding that the panel of judges decided to sentence “A” to 10 months in prison.
The statement also said that “A” appealed his other charges and said the Court of First Instance’s judge’s sentence was too harsh but the TSI panel rejected his appeal concerning the other charges. As a result, the statement noted that, combining all his charges, “A” has been sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment.
Harbouring an illegal immigrant or overstayer is a crime.
